A consent order is valid even when consent is given under a will that is later declared a forgery, provided the representative had authority.

[1] For convenience, in this judgment the parties will be referred to as they were in the High Court.

[2] The background facts leading to the present appeal are these. On 18 February 1982, Nadarajah s/o Dato' Sithambaram (deceased) entered into a sale and purchase agreement ("the agreement") with one Madam (Mdm) Ponnamal D/O Ramasamy to sell the land held under Grant No: 12359 Lot 1631 Mukim Teluk Bharu, in the State of Perak, measuring approximately 306 acres ("the said land"). The purchase price of the said land stated in the agreement was RM3 million out of which the deceased acknowledged receipt of RM420,000.00 as a deposit and part payment from Mdm Ponnamal. The completion date of the agreement was 18 December 1982 subject to the approval of the Foreign Investment Committee (FIC).

[3] On 20 August 1982, the deceased passed away. He left behind an aged mother named Datin Sellayee Ammal, a brother (the 1st defendant), two sisters, and a nephew named Dr Shanmuganathan (Dr Shan). Dr Shan's father was the elder brother of the deceased who predeceased him. On 4 September 1982 and 5 September 1982, a family meeting was held to decide on the management of the affairs of the deceased's estate. The following persons attended the meeting:

(i) The 1st defendant;

(ii) Mrs Thanaletchumi (one of the two sisters of the deceased);

(iii) Mr Dorairaj (representing Mrs. Kamalavathy, the other sister of the deceased);

(iv) Dr Shan; and

(v) The plaintiff

[4] The co-ordinator of the meeting was the plaintiff who also recorded the minutes of the meeting. The plaintiff was the brother-in law of Dr Shan.

[5] According to Item 2 of the minutes of the family meeting, since Datin Sellayee (the sole beneficiary of the estate of the deceased under the law) was old and was residing in India, she would be requested to renounce her entitlement to the said land in favour of the following persons:

(a) The 1st defendant;

(b) Mrs Kamalavathy;

(c) Mrs Thanaletchumi; and

(d) Dr Shan

[6] Item 3 of the minutes of the meeting states that the plaintiff and Mr Dorairaj should administer the estate of the deceased. However, if the lawyers are of the opinion that only one administrator is sufficient then the plaintiff shall be the sole administrator.

[7] Item 4 of the minutes of the meeting states:

"4. The properties that due to be administered are

A) Kamachi Estate of about 129.5 Hactors consisting of nine Grants. Of the nine Grants the main one Lot No: 1631 of 306 acres has been transferred to Mr Mooka Pillai, for an approximate sum of $3 million. He in turn has paid a sum of $420,000/- as deposit to late Mr S Nadarajah and the balance of sum 2.58 million is payable on or before December 18.

It has been agreed that this property be sold and the monies obtained to be used to pay the loan detained from Overseas Union Trust, for the KL building bought by the late Mr Nadarajah and the balance to be kept to pay the death duty."

[8] According to the minutes of the meeting, the next family meeting would be on 9 October 1982. However, this did not take place as on 1 October 1982 Datin Sellayee died, and it seemed that in her last will and testament she left the entire estate to Dr Shan. The effect of her last will is that if it is proved, then the entire estate of the deceased will go to Dr Shan. This, according to the evidence, appeared to have triggered a number of courses of action taken with regard to the deceased's estate by certain persons who attended the family meeting; which courses of action were not in line with the direction of the course of action to be